Reflections on 9-11

PETER'S NEW YORK, January 3, 2008--I want to honestly mention a few thoughts I had on the day 9-11 occurred. Some of these I am not particularly proud of, but because they were my instinctual reactions, I believe they have value in shedding light on some of the important events of that day.

My first reaction, of course, was sort of a la Ron Paul. "It's about time," I thought. "What did we expect?" American foreign policy had been so exploitative, so provocative, in fact, that it was only a matter of time before "blowback" occurred. That was the spontaneous reaction of many I spoke to around the time of 9-11, but such a reaction was pre-empted by government statements that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedoms," or some such rot.

When the Trade Center towers suddenly crumbled into a pile of rubble, virtually disappearing from the skyline, I thought, "What, they're gone?" It was truly a surprise and a shock.

Not only were the collapses unexpected, but they should never have occurred, nor should anyone have expected them to. No matter how damaging the collisions of two airliners with the respective towers of the World Trade Center may have been, that alone should have never caused the towers' collapse.

Another reaction I had was to blame firemen for storming up the towers and blocking others from coming down the stairs. Fact is, there was no reason for the firemen to expect that the towers would fall down, nor was there any apparent reason why they should have fallen down. Their mission was two-fold: to help in evacuation and to put the fires out. The collapse of the towers did NOT occur because of the impacts of the planes, which were not sufficient to bring them down the way they fell--crumbling into pile of dust and debris. The fire department behaved just as they should have. They are without blame, regardless of how their communications equipment worked or didn't. They truly were heroes, and not the misguided bunglers I thought they were at the time. I hope that this conveys the deep heartfelt respect I now have for these men and women and what they did on 9-11.

Later I thought, not being a fan of the world trade center anyway, "What a discovery! All we have to do to get rid of ulgy unwanted sky scrapers is to fly an airplane into them, and, lo and behold, they will crumble into a pile of rubble!" No, Peter. That is not what will happen when a plane flies into a skyscraper. That is what controlled demolitions are for. A way of collapsing buildings has already been discovered. Planes flying into buildings will not do that.

One way of thinking about the crumbling of the world trade centers, or of determining what could have caused such a collapse, is to think in terms of what one would have to do to make a building that would duplicate the 9-11 event. A comparison might be made of the towers and a model made of toy wooden blocks. Certainly such a construction of blocks might come tumbling down the way the Trade Towers did. Why? Because there is nothing holding the blocks together. There is no binding force between the blocks. Thus, if one wanted the World Trade Center towers to come down, one would just sever the beams in such a way that they would become like our model made of blocks: shortened beams with no binding force between them. In the case of the World Trade Center towers, this would require severing or cutting the beams in short pieces all at once. This would not have occurred due to a collision of a plane with the world trade center towers. Whatever the condition of the building at the site of impact, the rest of the building was still constructed in such a way that the beams retained their binding force with one another. Thus, a collapse such as would have occurred if the building were made of toy blocks, would not be possible. One must conclude that somehow, the beams must have been severed en masse in order to resemble the collapse of a building composed of toy wooden blocks not bound to one another.

In a controlled demolition, explosive charges are placed on building beams in such a way as to sever them in a timed succession that will bring the entire building down all at once. Only such a procedure can explain for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Who would have done such a thing? Well, the fellow who collected insurance on the buildings would be a prime suspect, as would anyone else who appreciably benefited from their destruction. Who else benefited? Policymakers who used the 9-11 incidents as reasons to retool America's security regime, in a manner that could also be used to stifle dissent and resistance by disarming it through quasi-legal "security" laws such as the Patriot Act, etc. One need only look to those who sponsored such legislation to find some of the other culprits.

In fact, it should not be difficult to find those who perpetrated the event. They will have left an obvious trail to those willing to wake up to the reality of what actually happened. But others will not believe even their own eyes. Why would Dick Cheney say that America will never be the same after the events of 9-11? What was in it for him? Who is he to make such a declaration? And the bogus list of terrorist "suspects" that appeared so soon after the events of 9-11. How did the government come up with such a list? And if the government knew, does it not beg the question of why they were not able to stop it? No wonder many are questioning the government's version of what happened on 9-11 and proposing theories of their own. Why, then, are such questioners being demonized and characterized as terrorists themselves? Think about it. For the same reason that Lynne Stewart was taken to court and criminalized for defending the blind shiek. Attack the people who might have a key to government malfeasance, as if they were criminals themselves. But don't you think the same strategies are getting a little old? Like, people might catch on?